[111299] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Hech
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Sat Sep 30 05:15:57 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:00:12 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAG84SOtRih-XSG3MnurYbf3KVfSh+qT8n9=yj2ri+xAnxftTmg@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============6398319604990518540==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------16948EFBCF8D778B2F0F0BB5"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------16948EFBCF8D778B2F0F0BB5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 9/29/2017 1:51 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:40 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name
> <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
> I do think there are ways to use *Hech* that don't involve *'e'.*
> Here's an example:
>
> nablIj wIlajchugh qaS Qugh. nab vIHechbogh jIH wIlajchugh
> maQapchu'.
>
> *toH!* So the question here is not whether *Hech* needs a *'e'*, but
> more specifically whether a quoted word itself can be considered as an
> intended outcome, with the implication of something intended to have
> been written or spoken.
>
> (This is the sort of situation where the "avoid being too Englishy"
> lobe of my brain starts acting up. Is this an English affectation I
> should avoid? Or is it the sort of obvious metaphor that most
> languages might develop naturally and I'm just being needlessly
> pedantic? This comes up a lot for me.)
That is the question for me, yes. It's possible that only *'e'* and
*net* are allowed; it's possible that anything you intend to /do/ or
/happen/ is allowed, whether represented by single nouns or whole
sentences; it's possible that even quoted speech and writing is allowed.
But when people say things like /*jul*/*vIHech,* I hear them discarding
the /mean to/ part of the definition to get it to match English. It's
very unclear, and needs Okrandian clarification.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------16948EFBCF8D778B2F0F0BB5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/29/2017 1:51 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtRih-XSG3MnurYbf3KVfSh+qT8n9=yj2ri+xAnxftTmg@mail.gmail.com">On
Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:40 PM, SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>
wrote:<span class=""></span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>I do think there are ways to use <b>Hech</b> that don't
involve <b>'e'.</b> Here's an example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>nablIj wIlajchugh qaS Qugh. nab vIHechbogh jIH wIlajchugh
maQapchu'.<span class="HOEnZb"></span><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><b>toH!</b> So the question here is not whether <b>Hech</b>
needs a <b>'e'</b>, but more specifically whether a quoted word
itself can be considered as an intended outcome, with the
implication of something intended to have been written or
spoken. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(This is the sort of situation where the "avoid being too
Englishy" lobe of my brain starts acting up. Is this an English
affectation I should avoid? Or is it the sort of obvious
metaphor that most languages might develop naturally and I'm
just being needlessly pedantic? This comes up a lot for me.)</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That is the question for me, yes. It's possible that only <b>'e'</b>
and <b>net</b> are allowed; it's possible that anything you
intend to <i>do</i> or <i>happen</i> is allowed, whether
represented by single nouns or whole sentences; it's possible that
even quoted speech and writing is allowed. But when people say
things like <i><b>jul</b></i><b> vIHech,</b> I hear them
discarding the <i>mean to</i> part of the definition to get it to
match English. It's very unclear, and needs Okrandian
clarification.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------16948EFBCF8D778B2F0F0BB5--
--===============6398319604990518540==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============6398319604990518540==--
